Society for Technical Communication

Revisiting Plain Language

Author(s): BETH MAZUR
Source: Technical Communication, Vol. 47, No. 2 (MAY 2000), pp. 205-211
Published by: Society for Technical Communication
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43748853
Accessed: 01-06-2019 03:53 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Society for Technical Communication is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Technical Communication

This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Sat, 01 Jun 2019 03:53:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SUMMARY
♦ Reviews past and current resources related to
the plain language movement
♦ Examines criticism of the movement in the
context of plain language resources and the
information design field

Revisiting Plain Language

BETH MAZUR

the Government and the private sector time, effort, and

not unlike defining information design. Ask money" (Clinton 1998).
10 people and you'l get 10 different answers.
What Yet not 10 people is just unlike plainYetasjuandst aswiwitthhindefiformatininogn ldesianguage?
gn, thereyou'
is a l information information get Actually, 10 different design, defining design. there answers. Ask it is is a THE ORIGINS OF PLAIN LANGUAGE
common thread. Two good resources for the history of plain language are
Redish (1985) and Schriver (1997). Both credit Stuart Chase
For example, one definition states that plain language
is "language that reflects the interests and needs ofasthe an original plain language proponent in the U.S. - in The
reader and consumer rather than the legal, bureaucratic,power
or of words (1953), Chase complained about "gobble-
dygook" in texts. In 1971, the National Council of Teachers
technological interests of the writer or of the organization
of English in the U.S. formed the Public Doublespeak
that the writer represents" (Steinberg 1991, p. 7). Martin
Cutts, research director of the Plain Language CommissionCommittee (Penman 1993). In 1972, U.S. President Richard
in the United Kingdom, defines plain language as "The Nixon created plain language momentum when he de-
writing and setting out of essential information in acreed way that the "Federal Register be written in 'layman's
that gives a cooperative, motivated person a good chance terms'" (Dorney 1988). Industry soon followed. In 1973,
of understanding the document at the first reading, andCitibank
in converted a promissory note to plain language, a
the same sense that the writer meant it to be understood" change that "brought great prestige to Citibank, which was
(1998, p. 3). seen as a leader in improving consumer relations" (Wil-
Plain language also has in common with information liams 1999, p. 3).
design both a broad and a narrow definition (see GinnyThe next major event in the U.S. history of plain lan-
Redish's commentary in this issue). Some definitions, guage such occurred in 1978, when U.S. President Jimmy Carter
as Cutts' above, suggest the broader goal of plain language issued Executive Orders 12,044 and 12,174. These were
that involves both writing and "setting out" language intended
so to make government regulations cost-effective
that the reader understands it. Other definitions refer more and easy to understand by those who were required to
comply with them. In 1981, U.S. President Ronald Reagan
to the origin of the term plain "language" or plain "English."
(In this article, the more generic term "plain language"rescinded
is those orders. Nevertheless, many continued their
used unless a cited work specifically refers to plain En- efforts to simplify documents; by 1991, eight states had
glish.) For example, Berry notes that the "goal of the plainpassed statutes related to plain language (Schriver 1997).
language movement is to produce language (particularly The plain language movement has also been active
written English) which is clear, straightforward expression, outside the U.S. "In 1982, the British government issued a
using only as many words as are necessary, and whichWhite Paper (a policy statement) ordering departments for
avoids obscurity, inflated vocabulary and convoluted sen- the first time to count their forms, abolish unnecessary
tence construction" (1995, p. 48). This latter definition andones, clarify the rest, and report their progress annually to
others like it are common for those, such as Berry, who the prime minister" (Cutts 1995, p. 6). In the foreword to a
approach plain language from the goal of producing plain book by the Plain English Campaign, a private company in
language in legal documents. the U.K., Chrissie Maher notes that they have "attacked
Understanding plain language is more than a philo- unclear legal language for the last fifteen years" (1996).
sophical discussion though, for on 1 June 1998, U.S. Pres- Proponents of plain language have also been active in
ident Bill Clinton issued a memorandum to the heads of Australia since 1976 and in Canada since 1988 (Schriver
1997; Berry 1995). Other countries with plain language
U.S. federal executive departments and agencies directing
them to begin using "plain language" to make government
"more responsive, accessible, and understandable Manuscript
in its received 29 August 1999; revised 1 November 1999;
communications with the public. . . . Plain language saves 29 November 1999.
accepted

Second Quarter 2000 • T echnicalQOAfflflUNCATlON 205

This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Sat, 01 Jun 2019 03:53:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Revisiting Plain Language Mazur

original. The result was that 87 percent of the law students

Perhaps more importantly
tested preferred the revision. More importantly, students
using the revised version performed better on 9 out of 12
language is credited
questions (Cutts 1998). with i
comprehension as well
CRITICISM OF PLAIN LANGUAGE as b
However, plain language has been the target of consider-
preferredableby readers.
criticism. In this article, I will review some of this
criticism while examining past and current plain language
efforts include Sweden, literature. In doing South Africa,
so, I will avoid for the sake of brevity a
(Baldwin 1999). many resources cited by plain language proponents (for
example, Strunk and White's Elements of style) and con-
WHY PLAIN LANGUAGE? centrate on those specifically about plain language.
Proponents assert that documents created using plain lan-
guage techniques are effective in a number of ways. AWhat is plain language anyway?
recent plain language resource (Baldwin 1999) lists theIn response to plain language criticism, Baldwin asks "But
following reasons: what are they criticizing? There is no single, world-standard
♦ Readers understand documents better. definition" (Baldwin 1999, p. 17). This in and of itself has
♦ Readers prefer plain language. been a long-time problem for the movement. In a critique
♦ Readers locate information faster. of plain language, Penman cites Charrow's 1979 work
♦ Documents are easier to update. What is plain English anyway? and notes that since then
♦ It is easier to train people. "the movement has, if anything, become even more varied
♦ Documents are more cost-effective. in its understandings of what is plain English" (1993, p.
In writing about the Citibank promissory note men- 122).
tioned above, Cheryl Stephens notes that cost-saving was For a example, as mentioned earlier, Kimble cited a
motive: study regarding the benefits of a revised letter for use by
the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA). The implica-
Citibank had spent a lot of time in Small Claims court tion is that plain language techniques were used to revise
the letter. But were they? In reviewing the original citation,
trying to collect on their promissory notes. It had also
spent a lot of time training staff to answer consumer the author does not mention plain language explicitly, but
questions about their complicated forms and contracts. notes that she
After the adoption of the plain language note and other
plain language forms, there was a measurable savings . . . produced research -based guidelines for VA, building
in staff training time [and] in the reduction in small on work in psycholinguistics and cognitive psychology,
claims lawsuits. And a substantial increase in market- document design, and reading and information pro-
share. And the wording of the new form has not beencessing theory. The guidelines cover audience analysis,
challenged in court. (Williams 1999, p. 2). organization, document design, style, syntax, supple-
ments, and graphics. Furthermore, I specified that the
Kimble (1996, 1997) cites a number of projects show- process of developing letters had to include iterative
ing the benefits of plain language techniques. One study cycles of drafting, review, testing with representative
cited a project for the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs readers,
in and revision based on the testing. (Daniels
which a sample letter was revised. Benefits counselors
1995)
estimated that 750 copies of the original letter had been
So, was
sent in one year with over 1,100 calls as a result. After the this plain language?
letter was revised, 710 copies were sent with just underThe 200answer is yes if you consider the above to be an
example
calls as a result. Similarly, after Allen-Bradley revised their of a "reader-oriented" approach to plain lan-
documentation using plain language techniques, their
guage. This is the second of three "tendencies" to plain
phone center call volume reduced from 50 calls alanguage
day to 2identified by Coe and cited by Penman, which
calls a month (Jereb 1991). include text-based, reader-oriented, and collaborative.
Text-based approaches place "the major focus on the doc-
Perhaps more importantly, plain language is credited
ument, not the reader per se" (1993, p. 122). Penman notes
with increased comprehension as well as being preferred
that Cutts
by readers. For example, using his own guidelines, neither he nor Coe had come across any examples of
revised a document (1993) and later tested it against
the last
theapproach, which involves having "representative

206 TechnicaiCOMMUMGATlON • Second Quarter 2000

This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Sat, 01 Jun 2019 03:53:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Mazur Revisiting Plain Language

readers involved from

of understandingthe beginning
it" (1998, p. 5). [
lowed to determine what is written and how it is written to Some plain language resources do instruct writers to
suit them as readers" (1993, p. 126). shorten sentences. However, even when such instructions
Current information design practice would appearare to given, there can be an interesting information design
parallel. For example, Wydick directs lawyers to "omit
have us placed rather firmly in the middle category as well,
surplus words" by removing "glue" words and concentrat-
with occasional calls for movement into the third category.
But there appears to be no real text-based counterpart ing
in on the "working" words. The example given shortens
the information design/document design world (in fact, the sentence "A trial by jury was requested by the defen-
some might argue that document design actually moves dant" to "The defendant requested a jury trial" (Wydick
away from the text-based focus of "traditional" technical
1994, p. 8). Wydick's working words are strikingly similar
writing). to Edward Tufte's concept of data density.

Plain language is just about text - Plain language doesn't concern

shortening it, dumbing it down. itself with visual design.
The majority of plain language resources do not advocateSome plain language resources do tend to be predomi-
shortening and dumbing down documents. In fact, many nantly about writing, particularly those directed at lawyers.
plain language proponents seem to share a similar respect Plain English for lawyers provides seven chapters covering
for the user with their information design counterparts. For
topics that are predominantly text oriented (Wydick 1994).
example, one resource notes, plain language ". . . does notIn Plain language pleadings , the main focus is on plain
mean always using simple words at the expense of the language in specific instances such as pleadings, legisla-
most accurate words or writing whole documents in kin- tion, and forms (Wilson 1996). In Legal writing, , writers are
dergarten language" (Cutts 1995, p. 3). admonished to follow seven text-based rules, such as
This same philosophy can also be found in plain lan- 'choose clarity' (Mellinkoff 1982). And unfortunately, Pres-
guage resources for lawyers. ident Clinton's memo (1998) is a target of this criticism,
since it notes that plain language documents, while having
Some people think that because plain language is sim- "easy-to-read design features" use:
ple, it must be simplistic - a kind of baby-talk. [But ♦ Common, everyday words, except for necessary
simple] in this sense doesn't mean simplistic. It means technical terms
straightforward, clear, precise. . . . What is appropriate ♦ "You" and other pronouns
in one context may be inappropriate in another. And it ♦ The active voice
takes time to develop the necessary sensitivity to the ♦ Short sentences
problems of your readers. (Asprey 1991 , pp. 11-12) In some plain language resources, there is at least a men-
tion of visual design. In The plain English approach to
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission notes business writing, Bailey notes that his "audiences usually
that plain English "... does not mean deleting complex
consider layout to be the most important topic I cover." His
information to make the document easier to understand.Chapter 4 is titled "Layout: Adding visual impact," and
For investors to make informed decisions, disclosure doc-
while it, like some other plain language resources, is short
uments must impart complex information. Using plain on specific
En- typographic and visual design instruction, it
glish assures the orderly and clear presentation of does cover the basic "white space" instructions in terms of
complex
paragraph length, headings, and lists (Bailey 1990, p. 37).
information so that investors have the best possible chance
Writing user-friendly documents (no date), the resource
available from U.S. Vice President Al Gore's Plain Language
Some plain language resources Action do Network (part of the U.S. National Partnership for
Reinventing Government) likewise covers these topics
instruct writers to shorten somewhat sparingly.
However, many plain language resources do address
sentences. However, even whenthe visual aspects of document design in considerable
detail. For example, the Document Design Center's Guide-
such instructions are given, therelines for document designers (Felker and others 1981) is
considered one of plain language's foundational docu-
ments.
can be an interesting information Written in 1981, this impressive resource includes
two sections related to visual design: one on typographic
design parallel. principles, the other on graphic principles.

Second Quarter 2000 • TechnicalCOMMUMCATlON 207

This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Sat, 01 Jun 2019 03:53:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Revisiting Plain Language Mazur

A more recent (and graphically sophis

language resource is the 1998 Plain English handbook The major criticism of plain
from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),
a must-read for those interested in plain language. While it language is that its guidelines do
is targeted primarily at those who must adhere to SEC
regulations, this resource contains a wealth of information.
not have sufficient research to back
In particular, it includes some strong statements about the
importance of design: them up.
A plain English document reflects thoughtful design have conveyed the information clearly. . . . The final test
choices. . . . In a plain English document, design serves of whether any piece of writing meets its goal of com-
the goal of communicating the information as clearly as municating information comes when humans read it.
possible, (p. 37) (1998, p. 57)

Finally, a new plain language resource goes a step Plain language tests document at the
further and incorporates concepts from Edward Tufte andend of the design process, if at all.
Robert Horn to emphasize "visual language" in the form ofAnother criticism about plain language is that, while infor-
"information design displays." In fact, the author recom-mation/document design has moved forward in support of
mends that writing and editing begin only after questionsuser-centered design throughout the design process, plain
about document design ("defining the look, navigation language has not. If plain language proponents test, they
features; deciding where and how to use visual language;do so only at the end of the process. However, if this
creating the headings") and information display ("creatingobjection was true at one time, it certainly appears to have
the tables, charts, infographies, and other graphical ele-changed in recent years.
ments") are answered (Baldwin 1999, p. 21). Baldwin sug- The resource Plain language online notes that a "cru-
gests that most writers have been conditioned to use a cial feature of plain language is testing the writing to de-
"piles of paragraphs" approach. In other words, we still termine whether it adequately conveys to the targeted
create documents as if our only tool is the typewriter. reader the writer's intentions. . . . This definition of plain
language is 'reader-based' and not [a] 'text-based' analysis
Plain language uses readability of a writing style." Plain language online also makes an
formulas of questionable validity. interesting point that testing the original document may
Schriver reports that by the mid-1980s, researchers hadhelpful and refers to a standard usability text for
prove
"abandoned" plain language studies because of doubts moreofinformation (1996).
the efficacy of the approach (1997). One major concern In Plain language for lawyers , Asprey notes
was the reliance on techniques such as readability formu-
las. Rudolf Flesch's How to write plain English was perhaps You need to begin testing (or at least test once) early
the strongest proponent of this method. In it, the average in the drafting process before your ideas have become
number of words in a sentence and the average numberfixed of and you've gone too far to turn back. If you test
syllables in a word are related using a scale. The lower the early, you'll be more receptive to suggestions, more
two variables, the higher the "readability" of the document open to changing strategy, and have more time to
(1979). incorporate changes. If you test early, you 'II find out
Plain language proponents such as the Document De- early if you have any fundamental misunderstand-
sign Center, however, were arguing against readability for- ings about how the document works in practice.
mulas as far back as 1980. In current literature, very few (1991, p. 228)
plain language resources promote the use of this type of
readability measure. Those who do mention them do notThe inability to implement (or get a client to pay for) a
recommend their use. For example, the SEC takes thisfully iterative approach for every project is something
approach: that plain language has in common with information
design. Perhaps more plain language proponents are
Readability formulas determine how difficult a piece of pragmatists who are willing to accept that while involv-
writing is to read. However ; you should be aware of a ing readers at all stages is the ideal solution, it is not
major flaw in every readability formula. No formula practical for every piece of writing that is done. This
takes into account the content of the document being appears to be particularly true in the legal community
evaluated. In other words, no formula can tell you if you (Kimble 1994, 1995).

208 TechnicalCOA/MINCATlON • Second Quarter 2000

This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Sat, 01 Jun 2019 03:53:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Mazur Revisiting Plain Language

Plain language is not backed up by research. production deadlines might have more impact on docu-
ment choices. Or as Redish and Rosen suggest, "Real-world
The major criticism of plain language is that its guidelines
do not have sufficient research to back them documents
up. This are compromises" (1991).
essentially translates to "does plain language work?" A
complete review of this question is outside the scope of
Plain language is about inviolate rules.
The last
this article and is certainly worthy of a follow-up article. But criticism I'll address is the rules versus guidelines
there are two points to consider in this area. issue. With the exception of some older plain language
resources such as Flesch (1979) and Mellinkoff (1982),
The first is whether guidelines are based on empirical
research. It is true that the majority of plain language
many plain language proponents point out that guidelines
resources do not cite research since the majority are of not
them rules; their observance requires judgment:
are directed toward the general public. If research is♦ men-"I say guidelines, not rules" (Cutts 1995, p. 2).
♦ "Don't make Plain Language guidelines into rules"
tioned, it is generally without specific citations. However,
of the resources I reviewed, the Document Design Center's (Baldwin 1999, p. 19).
Guidelines for document designers has no peer in this ♦ "As with all the advice in this handbook, feel free to
area.
tailor these tips to your schedule, your document,
For each of their 25 guidelines, they provide a section titled
"What the research says." One such guideline is the and sug- your budget. . . . Pick and choose the ones that
gestion to "avoid whiz deletions." A whiz deletion is work the for you." (SEC 1998).
absence of introductory text for subordinate clauses. Redish Theand Rosen provide an interesting discussion on
Guidelines offer the comparison between the sentence guidelines. First, they begin with a definition: "A guideline
"The director wants the report which was writtenis by a suggestion
the that helps writers achieve the goal of com-
Home Office." and "The director wants the reportmunicating
written clearly with their readers." They also note that
by the Home Office" (Felker and others 1981, pp."guidelines
39-40). are a necessary part of any heuristic" and argue
This guideline was based on direct research done by thatChar-
many writers have essentially internalized guidelines
row and Charrow (1978). In their extensive studythat of jury
are used as they write.
instructions, these authors found that whiz deletions made
The authors interviewed 30 people to find out whether
they
jury instructions harder to understand (Felker and used guidelines in their writing. Those who were
others
1981). professional writers said that they did not use guidelines at
The second issue regarding plain language guidelines this stage in their career (although many had used them
and research is that actual practice does not appear earlier).
to Those who were recent graduates of technical
writing programs had "mixed feelings" about guidelines.
follow the guidelines. For example, a group of researchers
asserted that the Document Design Center's guideline Some thought they were useful reminders, while others
about whiz deletions was not valid, since whiz deletions thought this was information they had already learned in
were a common occurrence in (presumably) well-writtenschool. The last group consisted of professionals in fields
documents (Huckin, Curtin, and Graham 1991). This dis- other than writing. For this group, 9 of 10 "reported that
crepancy between guidelines and practice was also illus- they rely on guidelines in their writing" (Redish and Rosen
trated by van der Waarde's study in Technical communi- 1991).
cation (1999). A review of 330 documents found that the The important point here is that guidelines are useful
majority did not follow standard guidelines with regardtools
to for those who write as a secondary activity rather
typographic dimension (x-height and line spacing). Does than as their primary profession. And this is exactly the
audience for whom plain language guidelines are usu-
this mean that the guidelines themselves are invalid? Per-
haps. But among other possible explanations for this find-
ally written.
ing, van der Waarde considered that "legibility and attrac-
tiveness are not the criteria that are most often used in CONCLUSION
Plain language
practice" and that criteria such as cost, standardization, or today has been and is being informed by
the work of information and document designers. Of the
resources I reviewed, I would recommend the SEC's Plain
The second issue regarding plain English handbook , Asprey's Plain language for lawyers ,
and Cutts' Plain English guide as worthwhile resources
language guidelines and research{Guidelines is for document designers is no longer in print).
Baldwin's Plain language and the document revolution
that actual practice does not appear also deserves a look. It takes plain language to a new
playing field, some of which is intriguing and some of
to follow the guidelines. which is curious. For example, although it provides a

Second Quarter 2000 • TechnicalCOMMUMGA I ION 209

This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Sat, 01 Jun 2019 03:53:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Revisiting Plain Language Mazur

Asprey, M. 1991 . Plain language for lawyers. Sydney, Australia:

Today's plain language
Federation Press. pro
clearly need
Bailey, E. more contribu
1990. The plain English approach to business writing.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
from the academic and re
Baldwin, C. 1999. Plain language and the document revolution.
organizationsWashington,that
DC: Lamplighter Press. provide

of its foundation.
Berry, D. 1995. "Speakable Australian acts." Information design
journal 8, no. 1 :48-63.
lengthy discussion of information displa
siderable promise Charrow,
for future
V., and R. Charrow. 1978. Thedocuments
comprehension of
cursory discussion of
standardactual
jury instructions: Ausability
psycholinguists approach. testin
Today's plain language
Arlington, VA: Center proponents
for Applied Linguistics. clea
contributions from the academic and r
tions that providedClinton,
much W. 1998. "Memorandum
of for the heads
its of executive
foundation
munications Design Center
departments at Carnegie M
and agencies." http://www.plainlanguage.gov/cites/
and the Information
memo, htm Design Center (an
the Document Design Center) at the Ameri
Research are no longer in acts."
Cutts, M. 1993. "Unspeakable operation,
Information design journal 7, but
Karen Schriver, Ginny
no. 2:115-120. Redish, and Susa
tinue to be very active in both informatio
language. Cutts, M. 1995. The plain English guide. Oxford, UK: Oxford
What is necessary for plain language to succeed? Re- University Press.
dish (1985, p. 136) suggests that we need to:
♦ Increase awareness of the problems that traditional Cutts, M. 1998. "Unspeakable acts revisited." Information design
documents cause. journal 9, no. 1 :39-43.
♦ Understand what causes the problems.
♦ Develop ways to solve the problems. Daniels, R. 1995. "Revising letters to veterans." Technical
♦ Apply the solutions. communication 42, no. 1 : 69 -75.
♦ Teach others how to apply the solutions.
In nearly 15 years, the essence of the issue remains the J. 1988. "The plain English movement." English journal
Dorney,
same. Our job as information designers should be to77,stay
no. 3: 49-51.
current with plain language, help inform it, and to make
sure that others who are interested in plain language un-
Felker, D., F. Pickering, V. Charrow, V. M. Holland, and J.
derstand its breadth. Redish. 1981. Guidelines for document designers. Washington,
DC: American
The momentum for plain language is definitely grow- Institutes for Research.
ing ... at least outside of our own field. Recently, the
American Bar Association passed a resolution that states
Flesch, R. 1979. How to write plain English. New York, NY:
"... That the American Bar Association urges agencies Harper
to and Row.
use plain language in writing regulations, as a means of
promoting the understanding of legal obligationsHuckin,
..." T., E. Curtin, and D. Graham. 1991. "Prescriptive
(1999). linguistics and plain English: The case of 'whiz deletions.'" In
Information designers take very seriously our obliga-
Plain language: Principles and practice, ed. E. Steinberg.
tions to users. While some criticisms may validly be laid
Detroit, Ml: Wayne State University Press, pp. 83-92.
against various manifestations of the plain language move-
ment, the movement can only benefit from attentionJereb.
and B. 1991 . "Plain English on the plant floor." In Plain
assistance from the information design community. TC language: Principles and practice, ed. E. Steinberg. Detroit, Ml:
Wayne State University Press, pp. 83-92.
REFERENCES
American Bar Association. 1999. "Recommendation 103A." Kimble, J. 1994, 1995. "Answering the critics of plain language."
http://wvwv.abanet.org/leadership/99annrecs/103A.html http://www.plainlanguage.gov/library/kimble2.htm

210 TechnicalCOAMUMCATION • Second Quarter 2000

This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Sat, 01 Jun 2019 03:53:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Mazur Revisiting Plain Language

Kimble, J. 1996, Steinberg,

1997. "Writing E. ,
for ed. 1991wr
dollars, .
Detroit, Ml: Wayne State
http://wvwv.plainlanguage.gov/library/kimble.ht

Mellinkoff, D. 1982. U.S.

LegalSecurities
writing: and Exch
Sense and
York, NY: Scribner. handbook: How to create clear SEC disclosure documents.
http ://www. sec . gov/news/handbook. htm
Penman, R. 1993.
"Unspeakable acts and other
plain legal language." van der Waarde, K. 1999. "Typographic
Information dimensions and journa
design
conventional wisdom: A discrepancy? Technical communication
Plain English Campaign. 46, no. 1 :67-74.
1996. Language on tr
English guide to legal writing . London, UK:
Williams, D. 1999. "A review of plain English writing tips for U.S.
Plain Language Action government
Network. documents." MA "Writing
thesis, George Mason University.
user-f
http://www.plainlanguage.gov/handbook/
Wilson, C. 1996. Plain language pleadings. Upper Saddle River,
"Plain Language NJ: Prentice
Online." Hall.
http://www.web.net/
Introduction/intro.html
Wydick, R. 1994. Plain English for lawyers. Durham, NC: Carolina
Redish, J. C. 1985. Academic Press.
"The plain English moveme
language today, ed. S. Greenbaum. New Yor
Press, pp. 125-138. BETH MAZUR is a Communication Specialist for AARP,
where she works with field staff and volunteers in the use of
Redish, J. C. and C. electronic
Rosen. media such 1991
as the Web, bulletin
. "Canboards, and e-
guide
lists. She is also a graduate
In Plain language: Principles and studentpractice,
at Georgetown University
ed.
Detroit, Ml: Wayne where
State she is studying Internet communication.
University She founded
Press, p
STC's Information Design Special Interest Group and is cur-
Schriver, K. 1997. Dynamics in
rently its newsletter editor. document
Contact information: bmazur@ des
John Wiley & Sons. aarp.org

Second Quarter 2000 • TechnicalOOAMMJNCATlON 21 1

This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Sat, 01 Jun 2019 03:53:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms